Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I just want to concur. I think this is a deserving amendment. We cannot do enough on these issues because this is going to have a lifetime effect on these people; and the more we do, as they come home, and even before they go to find out who is susceptible, this is critically important and will save us a lot of money. We will accept the amendment on our side.

Mr. DICKS. The committee recognizes the serious trouble of traumatic brain injury, as you just noted, and related conditions; and I'm happy to work with the gentleman from New Jersey to improve understanding of this important issue as we confer with the other body and work with our majority Members here who are deeply concerned, as we are, about this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I concur with the chairman and want to say to the gentleman from Minnesota, we appreciate his service to the country. You know a lot more about this than some of us who were not in the service, and we appreciate your leadership on this issue.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentlewoman for her amendment. I think it's well-thought-out, and I hope it has the desired effect. I congratulate her on offering it.

Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The Rapid Innovation Fund was authorized and appropriated by Congress in 2011 to allow innovative small businesses to compete for funding within the Department of Defense. It is a competitive, merit-based program designed to accelerate the fielding of innovative technologies into military systems. Last fall, each service and the OSBP issued broad agency announcements to solicit proposals for the first round of funding worth $500 million. Of the 3,554 white papers received, 514 received high priority or strong evaluations, valued at about $700 million. This bill provides an additional $250 million for this successful program for small businesses that are interested in working with the Department of Defense. Also, this money can be used for joint urgent operational needs. This is when the commanders in the field say that they need something in an urgent way, and this money is available for that kind of requirement. So, again, the gentleman raises a lot of insinuations that this was done because of doing away with the earmarks. It was done because we feel that small businesses in this country have a lot to offer the Defense Department. Not all of the innovations come from Lockheed and Boeing and General Dynamics. A lot of the innovation comes from smaller businesses who are, in essence, going to be cut out. We already have an existing program, the SBIR program, which we wanted to enhance so that small businesses would have a place to go so they could compete, where we would be doing this on a merits basis, that we would be doing it on the services saying these are areas where we need additional work. So I'm somewhat surprised that the gentleman would oppose something like this, knowing, I'm certain, he's an advocate for small businesses in our country. I think this is a good program and one that should be supported on a bipartisan basis. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I really appreciate what the gentleman just said. Another thing here, the gentleman is saying they should just rush out and spend this money. I don't mind a thorough, professional way of going about this, and to take some time to make sure they've got this right is what we want them to do.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to request a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash).

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman for his amendment, and we gladly support it.

Mr. DICKS. Will the chairman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman for his efforts here and my colleague from Washington State who I know has an abiding concern about this, as I do. This is a tragedy when more people are dying from suicide than are in combat. I know the Army has tried. General Corelli made an enormous effort to try to find the answers, and it's a serious, difficult problem. And a lot of it relies on trying to deal with these people before they go over so that you can find the ones that are going to be susceptible or have problems going in. It's just a very difficult problem. I commend the gentleman for his leadership on this.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I want to compliment the gentleman on listening to what we discussed in the last go-around and then taking a hard look at land- based ICBMs, which I believe have always been the most vulnerable part of the triad. The most invulnerable part, of course, is our ballistic missile submarine--and bombers are second--but the land-based ICBMs are vulnerable. There is no question about that, and I do believe we can reduce the amount of money we are spending on strategic forces. I think the focus should be, as General Cartwright has suggested, on reducing the ICBMs. So this is a way to start this debate, and I am going to support the gentleman's amendment today.

Mr. DICKS. I recall--and you might remember--that we had a great discussion about synergism, about the synergy of the three legs of the triad giving some protection to the land-based missiles. I agree with the gentleman's overall premise that we don't need as many nuclear weapons. I can remember John Lehman--famous for his 600- ship Navy--always saying to me, if you want to cut something, cut the submarines, and go ahead with the aircraft carriers and more airplanes because they're conventional weapons and, therefore, more usable.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. So what you are saying is you have got to have a competitive procedure.

Mr. DICKS. This is, I think, what we tried to do a few years ago on defense-related--with private companies is to have a competitive procedure, which I agree with. I think the gentleman is right on this. I appreciate his amendment.

Mr. DICKS. I object.